learntoquestion ltq discussions

Reading:

• Janet Flanner, “Profiles: Führer,” The New Yorker, 1936 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C3U2GgC0iI_3XFihGsyuFJAwBOVa8Ngn/view?usp=sharing

• Ignatius Phayre, “Hitler’s Mountain Home,” Homes and Gardens, November 1938 A transcript and facsimile of the article is on this site: http://new.wymaninstitute.org/2004/01/special-feature-hitler-in-homes-gardens/

• Ian Kershaw on the Charlie Rose show, January 27, 1999. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mjUy4-wAlI [watch from 30:38 to 54:55].

So why ARE we so intrigued by Hitler? For good or for bad, what is it that we want to know about him? Is it akin to our fascination with Beyoncé or Kim Kardashian or Donald Trump? Is it our fascination with the image of pure evil? Is it that we see him as the ultimate “bogeyman,” the Darth Vader/ Voldemort of the twentieth century? Is he responsible for every evil thing that happened in World War II? When one reads Mein Kampf, you are left to wonder: how could someone who writes such convoluted sentences and phrases be so fascinating for so many people?

Janet Flanner was intrigued early on. An American expatriate for much of her life, Flanner traveled to Germany to interview Hitler for a three-part profile in The New Yorker. Ignatius Phayre (a pseudonym) visited Hitler’s lair in the Bavarian Alps and profiled it in the Architectural Digest of the day, the magazine Homes and Gardens.

In fact, are these articles the 1930s equivalents of Oprah/Ellen/The View/”Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” celebrity-infused talk/gossip shows?

Ian Kershaw is without question the preeminent biographer of Adolf Hitler; it’s his 2-volume book you go to if you want to find out whether this rumor or that one is true or bogus with respect to the Führer. His two books (on reserve in the library in connection with the “targeted populations project” delves into every nook and cranny of Hitler’s life.

By reading through these articles and listening to the interview with Ian Kershaw, what ares the big “takeaways” for you re Hitler? Do you understand him any better? Do you think trying to understanding him is a worthwhile pursuit? At the end of the day, in your view, what’s the most important thing(s) to know about Adolf Hitler? And why?

I think we are intrigued by Hitler’s philosophy and the image of “absolute evil” that Hitler possesses. Hitler is “demonified” as a dictator who ruled over the Third Reich with absolute authority and carried out the deaths of many people. At the same time though, he is still human, so many people are intrigued by what his life would’ve been like. This could be seen in Ignatius’s article, where it describes Hitler’s mansion and how it came to be, as well as his daily life. Within this article, it feels like Hitler is a stereotypical rich political figure who lives a luxury life, with beautiful views in the background and a gorgeous mansion. It’s even stated that Hitler had a passion for cut flowers and music within his mansion, or having a talk with his gardeners like they were loyal friends, rather than servants. It would be difficult to see this man as the same man who ordered the mass deportation and execution of different groups all across Europe. Regarding the image of the ultimate “bogeyman”, I think this is another case of scapegoating. Yes, Hitler is ultimately responsible for the invasion of Poland, which led to the start of World War II, but this conflict dates all the way back to the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies needed one nation to fully harbor the consequences of the war, and it was plunged upon Germany.

Regarding Janet Flanner’s article, it does resemble the celebrity-infused talk/gossip shows of today, with the article describing Hitler’s daily life and his interests or hobbies. When someone reads this, it feels like Hitler is a completely different person than what history has placed him as, but they are still the same person. This same person who doesn’t drink alcohol, smoke, or eat meat and treats servants more like close friends is the same person who preached racial superiority, fascism, and “cleansing” Germany of its “disease”. I think this adds on to why people are so intrigued with Hitler, since it goes against the image of Hitler imprinted onto someone. It’s also important to keep in mind that Hitler was elected chancellor legally, which can speak a lot about the way he talked with people, as well as potentially charisma and charm. Furthermore, throughout Janet’s article, there are multiple names of people who supported Hitler’s ideology early on, such as a Harvard graduate and musician named Dr. Ernest Sedgwick Hanfstaengl, who lent the Nazi Party $1,000, during a time when the German economy was in turmoil. It is almost unsettling, but interesting that Adolf Hitler was such a person. In a way, that can connect Hitler’s life to the celebrity-infused shows today, with many of these shows being entertaining, relatable, or exciting. Many people try to find similarities between their own daily lives with those of a celebrity, with some people even copying habits that their favorite celebrities do. This can then also explain the fascination people have with Adolf Hitler, with some even agreeing with his ideology.

After listening to the interview with Ian Kershaw and reading through the other articles, I do feel like I have learned more about Hitler. I didn’t learn more about Hitler’s fascist regime, but rather who Hitler was as a person. The interview helped me understand Hitler a lot more, especially the breaking point that made Hitler become what he is notorious for or his speaking skills that made him a demagogue, a person who appeals to the people by using the people’s passions, prejudice, and needs to go against the current government or elites. From there, Kershaw delves into Hitler’s military strategy and intelligence, as well as focusing on what drove Hitler. This was nowhere near as personal as Ignatius’s article, but it provides a good comparison to see how Hitler changed during times of war. I understand Hitler more now as a person, rather than the personification of pure and absolute evil, which is a big point that Kershaw had also made. The image of Hitler being a national hero in the eyes of the German people or a dictator that rules with an iron fist in the eyes of the Allies is what Kershaw describes as “a product of circumstances in Germany, above all in the early 1920s, where people started to attach to Hitler these heroic qualities” (16:27 - 16:33), where the image of someone is heavily dependent on perspective. I think the most important thing to know about Hitler is his rise of power, as well as what he did with that amount of power, and eventually, his downfall. The way Hitler utilized his power transferred over to Germany, a society that is highly educated and technologically advanced, a country that Hitler was able to bring from economic turmoil and ruin to one of the most formidable nations during the 20th century.

It makes sense to be intrigued by Hitler. It makes sense to wonder what could possibly be so special about this guy. That’s probably the thing most people wonder, if they’re wondering something about Hitler. People probably wonder why Trump has such a following in the same way people wonder why Hitler had such a following. Our fascination with Beyonce and Kim Kardashian are a little different. Maybe back then, wondering how Hitler was living/ what he was up to was akin to wondering what Kim Kardashian or Beyonce was up to. I’d say the first 2 readings are in that vein of fascination, but the general fascination with Hitler is a little different. Part of that different fascination is that he is the “bogeyman” of the 20th century. He is the face of one of humanity’s lowest points, but that doesn’t mean he’s the sole reason it happened. I’d say Kaiser Wilhelm II is just as at fault, though less directly. I’d say the Treaty of Versailles is part of the fault. There is so much to blame. Hitler is of course part of the blame, but he most definitely isn’t 100% to blame.

The New Yorker profile and “Hitler’s Mountain Home” really do just treat Hitler like any other celebrity. It makes sense to wonder how someone famous lives, and these articles scratch that itch of curiosity for the general public. It felt weird reading about Hitler’s lifestyle. I don’t know whether or not it’s a good thing to learn these tiny details. It’s a little eerie for me to be learning that Hitler “has a passion for the piano” and that “he likes to stop at noon by the roadside, spread a robe on the meadow grass beneath trees, and have a picnic lunch”. I think it is important for people to understand that Hitler was just a guy, but it is scary to maybe find a similarity between yourself and Hitler. Hitler isn’t a source of pure evil, but he isn’t a regular dude who did regular things.

I have a couple of takeaways from what I’ve learned about Hitler. A big one is that, for his entire life, he struggled with finding a purpose. At first, he wanted to be an artist, and he failed to get into the Vienna School of Arts. Then, he found purpose in being a part of the German army in WW1. From the interview with Ian Kershaw: “’The regiment,’ he said, 'was his home.' And, at the end of the war, the defeat of the revolution, was the major shaking point, I think, which then turned Hitler, the drifter, into Hitler, the obsessive politician consumed with hate”. As we all know, Hitler wasn’t happy about how WW1 ended. He famously yelled “Scheisse” when he heard the news in the hospital. I don't think I can explain it better than Kershaw: “And he was himself looking for explanations as to why his world had crumbled beneath his feet, why what he was-- what he'd invested in, what he'd seen as a future then had collapsed and he found his explanation then in the figure of the Jews. It was an abstract hatred for him, I think, overall.” I think that connects to how he was able to get to where he got, and do what he did. Kershaw repeated the fact that the power of Hitler’s speaking came from his ability to convey emotions. What he was saying may not have been agreed by everyone, but he talked so fast, so passionately that it was hard to show the fault in his words, in the moment. A lot of that passion, I’d say, comes from his struggle with purpose. What he said, he said from the bottom of his heart, and the unsatisfied people of Germany were moved by the emotion more than the message. One, of the many things, that got people to follow him.

I’d say I understand Hitler a little better now. After WW1, the German people had this flame of hatred in them. When times are rough, people tend to lean towards the extremes. Hitler used his ability to passionately speak, to sort of pour gasoline on that flame of hatred. All he was, was a vehicle. He did know how to be a vehicle though. He knew how to market himself, which is a little weird to say but true. Overall, there was nothing too special about him. What was more special was the time and place. A time where the failure of the Weimar Republic had people questioning democracy and looking for an answer. Hitler made people feel (pretty strongly) that he had the answer, and that was enough.

Everything I mentioned is important, but it’s all about the nuance and circumstance. There is no one explanation for what made Hitler tick, there is no one explanation for what could turn a society into that horrifying machine of death.

I believe that we are so fascinated by Hitler because we are so confused by his motives. I think that to most people, Hitler’s crimes seem unimaginable (which is unfortunately why some ignorant people deny the Holocaust), but they were real, and we simply cannot fathom that idea. I think that Kershaw saw it best when he talked about how Hitler showed us how far people can really go. Hitler is the representation of just how horrible humans can truly be. I mean, I am even having trouble finding the words to describe this horrible excuse for a human being. I think that we also have begun to hold Hitler as the epitome of evil. For example, in order to get their points across, people will often compare someone they may not like to Hitler, and so at this point, he seems like a myth. He is something that we will never fully understand, and so he becomes less human, which is why I found the articles so interesting.

I have to agree with poster BigGulpFrom711 when they say that Janet Flanner’s article portrays Hitler completely differently to how he portrayed himself. In fact, I am sure that if it was about an actual decent human being, some would see him as a misunderstood guy. But, he wasn’t misunderstood, he was literally just a trash person. I also just found the entire article a bit weird, and some of the things mentioned seemed a bit unnecessary within the given context. I understand that people want to know everything they can about Hitler, but frankly, I feel that mentioning his surgeries or love for music could have been left out. I do realize that this could be an attempt to understand or even “humanize” him, but for me personally, it did not do any of that. As I mentioned before, at the end of the day, we will never get how someone could commit such cruel acts, and even as I was reading about how music would calm his nerves, my mind would shoot back to images of dying prisoners and concentration camps. The transcript was also interesting to me in a similar way. It just feels so odd reading such a seemingly cheerful catalog knowing whose home they were walking about. It just shocks me how we are able to talk about such an inhumane person in such a normal way. It even mentions that Hitler had made quite the “cutesy” life for himself, taking strolls and making “loyal” friends with his gardeners. It all just feels weird and slightly ironic.

I also noticed that both the article and the video mentioned Hitler not getting into art school, and so I wanted to go more in depth about that. No, I do not think that this event catapulted him into creating WWII, but I do think it was a pivotal moment in his life, and I think it shows a lot about his character based on how he handled his emotions. We also looked at some of his paintings today in class, and I think we all agreed that while it is clear he had talent, the pictures were quite boring. I think that a lot of the time in art, we are looking for a deeper meaning, but Hitler’s works did not have a deeper meaning. It just feels fitting that he did not seem to have as much creativity as other artists.

I do not think that our fascination with Hitler is really akin to anyone else in the world, he exemplifies a certain kind of evil. As mentioned before, I believe our main goal in investigating this man is just trying to find out why/how he did what he did. Honestly, after reading the articles, I only understood his home life better, but I do not think much beyond that. I feel trying to understand him in that light seems useless (in my opinion), but I also think it could be useful in some cases as a lesson of what not to do. I believe that the most important thing about Hitler is that he was just a guy. In reality, he could be anyone, and that is the danger of it.

I think the reason that we’re so intrigued by Hitler because of how villainized and how detached from humanity he seemed to be. We always picture him as the big bad face of Nazi Germany, and very rarely ever think about his life before politics. It’s absolutely jarring to see the man who orchestrated the holocaust in pictures petting dogs, or kissing children. This is the man who decimated thousands upon thousands of targeted populations, including the disabled and the ill, and yet he was prone to tuberculosis as a child and also suffered from insomnia. Our interest in Hitler is based on our interest in the humanity that lurks beneath the pure evil that he represents, and there is no other living person that intrigues us in the same way that Hitler does, as no one else really represents pure evil.

I think one of the big takeaways from these interviews was simply the idea that Hitler was, in fact, a living breathing human who existed before become the dictator we all know today. He had a childhood, he had parents, he was a skilled artist. Somewhere along the way, the vegetarian who refused to consume alcohol or nicotine ended up starting one of the bloodiest genocides of all time and initiating a global conflict. I think it’s interesting that growing up, he didn’t really have any friends. He was a social pariah, who would spend most of his free time alone, almost as if the children around him could sense that the man was bound to do unspeakable things. It seems like besides all the normal things that we’re told he was, his presence still felt unusual in one way or the other, and I think that his lack of ability to initiate small talk and socialize probably lead to the Hitler that we know today. If he really was some shy, quiet man who lived alone and had no friends then I can absolutely see him having a meltdown over his rejection from college, and the mental deterioration and leaps and bounds in logic that he’d justify in his head, since he doesn’t really have any support systems. Even as a dictator, it’s noted how he has a very small close circle; on one hand this showcases how private of a person he was but on the other hand it’s probably because he doesn’t know how to make many friends. Flanner even points out that he has one, singular, close male friend named Rudolph Hess, despite working in a predominately male environment. His small number of friends almost reflects the danger of a single story, as the less people that he has interaction with, the larger the chance that everyone in his life will agree with him and validate his delusions to himself. Throughout his entire life, his knack at art and nothing else had always been prevalent, and it’s interesting to think about how that one talent ended up inspiring the iconography of the swastika, and how widespread that icon still is, in modern society.

At the end of the day, I don’t think anyone can truly understand Hitler, even after all the context that Fuller and Phayre provide. It’s hard to understand someone whose very identity feels like a contradiction; he’s arguably one of the worst killers in history and yet he owns a quaint little house in the mountains with a gorgeous view and a prevailing theme of jade green furniture. Hitler has all these followers that worship and idolize him, and yet he can’t talk to a woman to save his life, and he ends up never really dating. Hitler goes on to censor anything critical of his regime in order to further the nationalism he promotes, and yet he himself was also a big movie geek who loved to watch historical films. I think that from the loss of his mother to the college rejection and the overall atmosphere of Germany of the time, we can see why Hitler ended up the way that he did, but we’ll never be able to pin an exact breaking point for him. It’s sad and scary to think that under the right circumstances, a man could be deluded so far into instigating an uprising that lead to one of the bloodiest global conflicts ever. He had all the promise to lead a normal life as a small, insignificant artist who’s name we’d never know, and yet he ended up being someone so evil in modern society that it’s almost comical.

I want to agree with lil breezy over their assertion that the college rejection was a pivotal point in Hitler’s life that showcased just how emotionally immature he was. He lacked the proper emotions in his art to be accepted, and his lack of emotions in his art was even felt by us when we critiqued it. It was gorgeous, but there was no soul at all, and there was an underlying sense of coldness and distance, even when warm colors were employed. He also lacked the support systems to cope with his rejection. I think all of us here know what it feels like to mentally spiral because of academics, but there is absolutely no justification for the route that Hitler ended up taking, and it’s rather tragic to think that one of the greatest injustices in history started partly because Adolf Hitler’s tiny, fragile ego couldn’t cope with rejection from college.

Reading these articles was definitely an interesting, yet strange experience for me. In both the Flanner and Ignatius articles, the details that we learn about his lifestyle make him seem like a normal person. The little fact that Hitler often treated his servants like close friends was also very unexpected. Since the actions that he took later in his life are so monstrous, it is genuinely hard for me (and I assume many others as well) to imagine him to have possibly been a friendly guy to anyone. I have to admit that it is genuinely difficult for me to see Hitler as a person because of the terrible things that he has done; I can’t just learn about his hobbies and life before everything without thinking of what he would become. It does make me wonder though: How would Hitler react if someone went back in time and told him about all the inhumane crimes he would commit? Would he be shocked and devastated, or proud? It’s hard to even imagine a man like Hitler being capable of regret or basic kindness. For me, humanizing Hitler is just incredibly hard to do, even if you told me about his greatest traits before the rise of the Nazi party. It almost makes me upset to learn about his humane aspects before everything. There's a part of me that thinks he does not ever deserve to be viewed on the same level as an average person because of what he would later become. It makes me uncomfortable to learn about how he was just living an average life.

I feel like these articles can’t be fully categorized into the “celebrity gossip” genre because of the simple fact that they are about Hitler. Yes, these articles do follow the concept of talking about his routine and habits as if he were a rising star, but you can’t just ignore the reality of his character when reading something like this. For me, I’ll always be a bit off-put when hearing about the lives of terrible people, as if it’s wrong to group them with other human beings. I see these articles as more of an educational tool because of this. The interview provides much less personal information about Hitler and goes more into his professional career and the Nazis / WWII. Learning about the ways which Hitler used to gain the support of millions was incredibly interesting as well, since he basically convinced these people to also push their hate to the extreme using mainly his speaker skills.

I think that on the surface level, we are not necessarily intrigued by Hitler but the horrible legacy he left that overshadows him. We spend so much talking about how evil he was and the impact he’s left, as well as how terrible he is but we forget he was flesh and blood like us. It’s easy to assume that Hitler was responsible for everything evil that happened in World War II as he is the figurehead of the whole thing, however there were many extenuating circumstances and people that were involved in this conflict that makes it so Hitler is not entirely to blame, although he does rightfully garner a lot of the said blame. We don’t ever take a moment to stop and consider how Hitler came to be and what was he like beyond the volatile things that he had done. It’s sort of the idea of putting a face to a name but on a much greater scale. Humans are so complex that it’s difficult to grasp it all so people sometimes tend to boil people down to what is the most notable which is why I think it’s difficult for us to grasp how Hitler had been other things. How he was a vegetarian, how he was an artist, how he was towards people he knew personally. How he lived in a mansion with a garden. This is the same reason why I don’t think we’ll ever truly be able to comprehend and understand Hitler and his actions even though I think it would be important to. Not to try and rationalize his actions because nothing could ever rationalize or justify his actions but truly understand what humans are capable and to be cautious of that. At the end of the day, while his past and his motive is interesting to know and speculate about, Adolf Hitler should be defined by the suffering and agony he’s induced, the mass genocide of millions of people.

I do agree with BigGulp that it is important to consider the environment at the time and how Hitler’s rise to power was a product of circumstances to further understand Hitler, that Kershaw quote was a highlight to consider.

To respond to Arcoiris, I do recall seeing the same question of would you shoot baby Hitler on the internet once and looking at all the comments with an overwhelming slew of “Yes’s”. I think it’s interesting that your dad had considered everything, and truly just emphasizes how everything that occurs in history has affected every single person, no matter how big or small the impact, and how long that impact lasts. It’s shocking to think about.

By reading and watching the resources I can conclude that we are intrigued by Hitler because he led an industrialized society to the depths of humanity and society. It’s like when you’re driving past an accident and cannot look away, you want to know more even if the result is gruesome. I think this is different from our obsession with current American celebrities - these are people we idolize, look up to. Even Trump is different because we just want to keep up with him and know his next move. With Hitler we really just want to understand how and why someone does something so far from how we act in our own society. The account of Janet Flanner does give him some sort of celebrity status - we learn about his personal life and even the women he hangs out with, something akin to Pete Davidson’s endless girlfriends.

I do not believe he is responsible for every action taken during World War 2 however he should shoulder most of the guilt. Some should go to his very top advisors and commanders - Himmler, Heydrich, and Eichmann who did just as much for the Holocaust as Hitler did in my opinion. His position as a demagogue and great speaker was what fascinated audiences rather than his actual points. Overall his rise seems like a perfect storm event - a man who is outcast by society and harbors extreme views orates around a fragile nation waiting for a leader to seize power.

After listening to the interview I know why studying him is a worthwhile pursuit. Seeing the tactics he uses to ascend to power as well as the symptoms of society which allowed that to happen must be examined because we can prevent future tragedies. History could have be